Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1887-11-25
ACCIDENT INSURANCE.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION TO THOSE VIII
TAKE ACCIDENT POLICIES.


AN IMPORTANT DECISION TO THOSE WIN
TAKE ACCIDENT POLICIES.
Last week the Court of Appeals, sitting
in Richmond, decided a very interesting
case involving the law of Insurance.
against accidents. The case was argued
and submitted at the recent session of thu
Court of Appeals in Staunton. 1t was ap
pealed from the Circuit Court of AugH sta
Its style was Nora Newman by &c. Us
United States Mutual Accident Insuranc,
Company of New York.
In 1884, James w. Newman, a young
man then living in Stauuton, obtained
from the above named insurance company
policy of indemnity against death or dis
ability resulting from accidental causes
for the benefit of his little sister, Nora
Newman, then six or seven years of age
At that time Newman was clerk, and a
member of the class of risks to which he
belonged was entitled in case of death re-
sulting from accidental Injury to SIS 000.0
Afterwards he went to Richmond and be
came bar-keeper for Otto Morganstern
L In May, 1885, his health becoming 9
little delicate, he quit Morganstern's EN-
ployment, and remained in the county
until Sept. End of that year, when BIT
returned to Morganstern' to res ulne hi,
former position with him. Arriving al
Morganstern's at night, and finding his
house full of company, he went to hote
to spend the night, upon the understand
Ing that he wasato enter on his duties az
bar keeper the following morning.
|. That night the key by which the gas in
the room occupied by him was turned Of
and on, dropped out; the room became
filled with gas, and early the next morning
the young man was found dead in his bed
Itwas plain his death had been caused by
the Inhalation of coal gas, although there
were no marked visible signs on his person
of the cause of death.
The policy of insurance provided that
the beneficiary would not be entitled to its
benefits unless the assured came to his
death by accidental, Usolent and external
means, of achach there aeas some ussable sign
on the person.
1t was also further provided that il
death resulted from taxing poison or COM
ing an contact ooitb poisonous substances, the
beneficiary would not be entitled to in
demnity.
The Insurance Company refused to pay
on the alleged ground chat coal gas Is a
poison, and consequently that James E.
Newman came to his death by taking
poison or coming in contact with poison
Gus substances; and upon the further
ground that there were 10 visible signs of
tile cause Of death ON the person of the
deceased.
Tbs further contention on the part of
the Company was, that if Newman was
entitled to anything, it was only 1900 90,
because this Was the amount to which d
bar-keeper was entitled; and that New
man before his death had ceased to be a
clerk and had become bar-keeper.
The most interesting questions were
whether coal gas is poison; and if 80
whether breathing this gas inyoluntdrilV
by young Newman whilst ASLEEP was
taking it or coming IN contact with it with
in the intent and meaning of the policy
Professor Mallet, of the University of
Virginia, testified before the jury ON the
trial last November, and the dispositions
of disting ulshed chemists and medical
men of New Yo.k City were read in evil
dence.
The jury upon the evidence, and in
structions of the Court as to the law,
found in favor of the plaintiff. little Nora
Newman, but rendered verdict for only
So 10000
The plaintiffs counsel thought they
were entitled to verdict for $5,000.00,
but did not take an appeal.
The Insurance Company appealed the
case. and the Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the Court below.
This was one of the most interesting
cases that has been tried in the Circuit
Court of August for many years.
The plaintiffs counsel were George M
Cochran, Jr., Esq, and Messrs. Elder &
Nelson; the Insurance Company was re-
presented by Messrs Shelley & Bumgard-
ner.